BMG Rights Management vs. just BMG

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f58f0726618>

Why is BMG Rights Management used instead of just “BMG” when the “imprint” shown on releases is just BMG? I know that’s how it’s been for years, but I’m asking because I’m getting no votes based on this situation.


I would have merged them. I waffle more in the thread, but isn’t the “BMG” on a logo just being a prettified version of the longer name? A quick look at Wikipedia use both titles in the same article.

It is the same company, same bosses, operating out of the same offices. We should focus on the actual entity and not the text.

I would keep them separate, as there are legitimate releases that just have “BMG” as the label (see Many of them currently under “BMG Rights Management” are mislabeled.

Edit: It’s much more complicated than I thought. Our friends at Discogs concluded their discussion on this with "This is typical Discogs…another unresolved mess to fester for years… ".

What is needed is a nice clear “how to tell the difference” note on the top of the annotations.

Many people are not as mad and geeky as us as to keeping things separate. Often it is about the first match that comes up in a search. Seeing disambiguations are a great step forward, but it is still confusing.

If I see a BMG logo, how do I know if it is for BMG, BMG Rights Management or another variation on a theme? Made especially messy by Sony \ EMI with their rebranding over the years.

Usually there is a cut based on a YEAR. In this example when the original BMG ceased to be and became part of SONY and then EMI. I would not merge a before and after that date as the companies were run in a different way.

There is also the confusions between “BMG” the imprint that appears as part of a logo, and the “BMG Rights Management” who then hold the copyrights. Same name company, probably based in same building, but a technically different legal entities. Some companies are big enough to show this as a separate thing, other labels are small and this is simpler all kept as a single company.

We have relationships in MB that make the above easy to tell apart, which is why I am the kind of person that sees this as a single beast to be merged as that avoids splitting data that should be attached to the “other” BMG.

1 Like

I wouldn’t put any faith in what Discogs does with labels. They won’t act on and think there’s some kind of value in merging the releases of Nippon Columbia and Sony Columbia into the same page.


I do agree there. Some days Discogs can be really good with their details and quality of research.

Other days they are lost in petty arguments where no one can back down and it becomes all about not loosing face. They seem to prefer winning an argument over finding the best\most accurate solution. I’ve been trying to read the BMG thread but it is also lost in petty bickering.

I would keep them separate as long as we do not have label credit possible.
Many times I have used a label with not completely correct name, because I was lazy creating the imprint sub label, like appropriately done here for BMG.

Actually, there are many releases, mostly in the early 2010s, that have “BMG Rights Management” as the imprint. The copyright holder is almost always a variation, i.e. BMG Rights Management (US) LLC, BMG Rights Management (UK) Ltd., BMG Rights Management GmbH, etc. Then within a couple of years after seeing this as an imprint, “BMG” just started showing up again. However, many bands, still had their releases show up with the imprint of “BMG Rights Management”, while others at the same time had just “BMG”. Why different imprint logos on releases released at the same time? My only conclusion is that they wanted them to be different for some reason.


Agreed. Discogs appears to have the same type of mistakes with labels as MB does.


This is often part of the puzzle. They only put the main part of the company name on the back of the CD, and leave off the actual country. EMI are so huge that they end up with a large complex spiders web of connections that would need a database of its own to sort out.

Lately I have seen more and more write-ups added at Discogs about how to spot the differences. Especially in areas like CD Manufacturing. I am all for using our own Annotation fields to put in much better descriptions on how it all works.

Even when I only know a little bit, I’ll add those notes. The idea being someone else will add more details, and between us we decode the mysteries of Big Business.

These examples we have a BMG logo for the imprint, a BMG Rights Management for copyrights, and maybe a DADC Sony for the manufacturer.

I still find the term “imprint” a bit odd to get latched into my head. :smiley:

Here is an example of Sony BMG Entertainment:

The small text says copyright to Sony BMG Entertainment (UK) Ltd.

The main logo shows Sony BMG Entertainment, so that is the imprint along with Cheeky Records?

On the release the main label is selected without country:

Should we “guess” and select the UK one in there? I always understood that as leave it on the main label as read on the cover. I see the country specific small print more about copyright.

On on the same thread - I notice Cheeky Records “has parent” of BMG UK & Ireland. I assume since 2008 it now also “has parent” Sony BMG Entertainment - but it that the main Sony Entertainment BMG or the Sony BMG Entertainment (UK) Ltd? :exploding_head:

Looks good. The “imprint” or “release label” is Sony BMG Music Entertainment. The small text is for the copyright info on relationships. We shouldn’t guess at all. That release looks correct.
Examples of BMG Rights Management vs. BMG
BMG Rights Mangaement, released in 2010:
BMG, also released in 2010:

1 Like

Thanks for the confirm. I’ll finish tweaking those Releases in that RG as I only just added the Sony BMG Entertainment bit as that one was only Cheeky before.

I also notice there is another rule - the later the years get, the more the Sony and then EMI copyright waffles off into irrelevance :grin: